Limited Government Versus Big Government

By Christina "Chris" Witt

Defends the notion of limited government. Defends the Founders' notion of limited government and discusses the roles of government.

Plato's "The Republic" was a debate about a socialist style government in an attempt to create a social "Utopia." The banter was polite and full of "what ifs" and "what abouts." In Plato's time, it appears laws were in effect denying women education and jobs. Through Plato's discourse, he was pointing out that many of the women are well-suited by their natures to being educated and doing jobs and limited only by their physical stature. As the conversation continued, it becomes clear that the conversation was about creating the perfect society by making everyone equal and in unity (one). A society with no wants, where the best traits are bred in, deformities and inferior people bred out, and of course guardians to ensure that the State feels and acts as a single unit. The State raises the children, leaving mothers without the need to wake up in the middle of the night to feed or change poopy diapers and guardians were allowed no possessions to "preserve their true character [as] guardians." Of course, the law would make incest illegal but since no one knew who their father or mother or daughter or son was, this posed a problem which was solved by defining the bridegroom's sons and daughters as any child born after the 7th and 10th month of the hymeneal. Procreational ages were designated to ensure all eggs and sperms were healthy and all marriages were to be issued by the State. Men and women would have a "common way of life...common education, common children..." In the end, the society would act and feel as one. "The best ordered State there is the nearest approach to this common feeling which you describe."

There appeared to be no malice in the creation of the "Republic." Plato tried to cover all angles, some of them were even rather absurd (I would never give my baby up! I will deal with the sleepless nights and poopy diapers!). Again, though, as Kristol pointed out, it is unsure whether Plato wrote this to be funny or was serious. However, there are things to be noted in Plato's "dream."

There is no individuality. The State assigns the work of a person based on their mental or physical capabilities. The weak and deformed are not allowed to live. The State says whom you can marry and assigns you to a mate that is similar to you. The State raises your children. The State legislates marriage, copulation, and reproduction. The State redefines what rulers call the people (instead of calling them slaves, they are called maintainers and foster-fathers). Children born out of State approved wedlock were considered evil and children born outside of the State regulated reproduction age-limit were "bastard(s) to the State." I believe our Forefathers would be quite opposed to this government, but there is one point that Plato and our Founding Fathers agreed upon, "The guardians must themselves obey the laws, and they must also imitate the spirit of them in any details which are entrusted in their care."

The fact is, while Plato's State was just a dream, human nature would ensure it would never be successful. Kristol believed that Plato understood his dream would never become a reality, however, "Utopias existed to produce better political philosophers, not better politics." This is the framework our Framers had to understand and deal with. They knew, throughout history, that governments rose and fell and understood what caused those failures. In an effort to avoid similar failure of their new country, they tried something unique, something that had never been done before. They pulled together ideas from those governments, debated and discussed, how to create a brand-new form of government that would allow individuals their freedom to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and endure any societal/political changes. In a sense, they dreamed our United States and attempted to make those dreams a reality.

I have to wonder how familiar the Founders were with Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince". In essence, Machiavelli felt that the Prince should be well balanced. Know when to use good and evil , know when to be feared and when to be loved, know when to be liberal and when to be mean, and especially avoid being despised and hated. Above all else, the Prince should be proficient in the art of war and study at all times, especially during peace times. At all times, the Prince should never take property unless it is spoils of war at which point, "that which is neither yours or your subjects' you can be a ready giver...it does not take away your reputation of squander that of others." The reason a Prince needs to be balanced is because "He who is highly esteemed is not easily conspired against...when [the people are] hostile to him, and bears hatred towards him, he ought to fear everything and everybody." The Founders knew that a balanced, limited government would help to ensure that the people were happy to pursue their own happiness. A government that was proficient in war would give security to the citizens of the new United States, and while government was a "necessary evil," by putting in restraints, the Framers were able to balance out the government.

Roger Pilon was gracious enough to take the Declaration of Independence and explain it line by line. By doing this, he taught that the wording of the Declaration of Independence was worded in a specific order, first dealing with our natural rights and dealing with morals before even mentioning the government. When government is finally brought up, the Founders had proved that man came before government, therefore government was to "secure our rights" through "the just powers from the consent of the governed." Pilon explains "They believed that individuals, families, and organizations of all kinds would flourish if only they were free to do so." It showed deliberate and careful thought as the Founders dreamed of a new government that no one had dreamt of before.

John Locke had suggested four principles for how a legislative government should work. The first principle is that the law cannot have complete power over the people. It must be "limited to the public good of society...can never have the right to destroy, enslave or designedly to impoverish the subjects." The second principle is legislature cannot start passing out absolute laws. "The ruling power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions. The third principle prohibits legislature from taking property from an individual without the individual's consent. The fourth and last principle is that the power of legislature stays with that legislature, the power cannot be transferred elsewhere. "The legislature can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands." This would appear to be a good reference point for the newly born United States.

The first attempt, however, was not perfect. While the Framers did their best to ensure a limited government, before the Constitution was ratified, people demanded a bill of rights. An anonymous letter was written regarding the clause, "And to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States; or in any department or offices therof." The concern was, "Who shall judge legislature what is necessary and proper?" The fear was that only force could restrain Congress and the people were tired of war. To tighten the reigns on Congress, it was suggested, "If we had a bill of rights to which we might appeal" then the powers of Congress to create laws that were necessary and proper would have to fall within those guidelines, giving Congress limited powers to create any laws and maintaining the basic rights of the people. This letter shows how fearful the people were and how they wanted assurances of a limited government that would only be in existence to secure their safety and their rights instead of harming them for whatever personal ambitions lead the leader of the time. In essence, this was the Founder's dreams of a utopia, while not perfect, it was as realistically close as they could get.

Almost 100 years later, the Founder's dreams though were beginning to crumble. A new generation had risen that knew that the only way to create their utopia, would be to completely discredit the Framers of the Constitution and then change the definitions of the words in the document to make it comply to their vision of the perfect society. Ronald J. Pestritto tells of how John Goodnow knew he had to prove that the Framers didn't really know what they were doing, or at least, that what they did then didn't apply to modern times. "The focus of the Founders' constitutionalism on government's permanent duty to protect individual rights was an impediment to the marked expansion of governmental power that Progressives desired: thus, the ideas that animated the Founder's conception of government had to be discredited." This was done by saying that there was no historical basis for the Founder's political theory and that it was speculation only. Ideas were being submitted that the rights our Founders believed to be given to us by "Nature and Nature's God" was changing into the belief that rights were "to be determined by the legislative authority." Woodrow Wilson believed that "the human nature was no longer a danger in democratic government" and felt that Hegel's theory that, "a secure position in the bureaucracy, with tenure and good pay, would relieve the civil servant of his natural self-interestedness, thereby freeing him of is particularity and allowing him to focus solely on the objective good of society" made the Founder's government obsolete. This new dream of utopia is not rooted in reality however. How many of us have gotten a raise, been happy with that raise for a while and then wanted more? While Wilson's dreams were very optimistic, they were not reality. Greed in human nature and the need to dominate others are two very powerful drives of the human species that has not departed from our DNA.

Frederic Bastiat warned that a government that committed legal plunder would create a discontented society. He defined legal plunder as, "The law takes from some person what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong...If the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." As the government's activities of "legal plunder" continue, it "fosters resentment rather than relationships between wealthy and poor" because "among the middle class [there is] a sense of "suffering because of" the poor..." while "the [poor] views aid as a right rather than a gift." When the government takes away an individual's right to help the poor, they become bitter and unwilling to help the poor. In a discussion last week with a peer, I stated that it used to be the church (and even other religions) that would ensure that the widows, orphans, and the poor were taken care of. The benevolence of religion and other private institutions originally took care of those in need. This allowed those who did prosper to voluntarily give a portion of their money to whatever religion they chose so the money could be used to aid those in need.

The churches are able to deal with these people one-on-one. There were two cases at our church, where two women were obviously abusing the generosity of the church. At first, it was, "We need help with a bill here" or "We need groceries there." One woman, actually obtained an AA in Gen Ed and was in her 50's with no children. The church began denying her requests because they stated she needed to get a job. Despite the church denying her help, she still refuses to work. She currently does not have a job and has housing through HUD Section 8. The other woman was "legally blind" so "couldn't work" but was somehow able to identify my van from 1/2 mile away when she needed a ride! She has many children and is always asking for handouts instead of living responsibly. One Christmas, my church went out to give out Christmas gifts to disadvantaged children in our town's low-income housing neighborhood. She did not live in the area, but knew about the gifts. She called the church and asked what they were doing with the leftover presents. The church said they were giving the toys to Salvation Army for their toy drive. She became infuriated and demanded that those gifts be delivered to her home. Needless to say, my church put their foot down and refused to give her aid because it was obvious she felt "entitled" to it. She is now running out of options since she is wearing out her welcome in other churches. The government could never have this kind of interaction with these people. It is not able to recognize the abuse of people like these. The government is currently overburdened with people currently abusing the social system.

My church was there for me when I was in dire need and I was able to reciprocate when I was able to give aid. This proves that when aid is on a personal level, the recipient is more likely to return like and kind. During these rough economic times, many of our church members were hit by lay-offs and trying to figure out how they were going to feed their families. The church came to their aid, paid their bills, bought grocery cards en mass and helped. One large family lost their father/husband and the widow was a stay-at-home mom with no formal work experience and a newborn baby. And I was there when a single mother family lost their mother because she suddenly died in her sleep leaving the children with no one. The church is able to decipher the needs appropriately, the government never could. The church can provide reasonable aid beyond material needs to help not just support people in need, but enable them to help themselves. I found it very encouraging to read that some of the authors agreed with me! Though, they said it much more eloquently than I did!

Another problem with big government, other than encouraging isolationism and castes (rich vs. poor), it also begins to eliminate individuality. Each person is to be "created" by the government. All things that make us who we are must be "wrought out" so the government can make us what it wants us to be. In this essence, the government has gone from protecting the liberties of the individual to becoming "god".

Are there places for government? Yes. Our military protects us from foreign invaders. Our education system allows all to get an education K-12. Federal Child Labor Laws protect our children from dangerous slavery and the Center for Disease Control has improved not only our way of life, but our life expectancy as we survive diseases that killed many before vaccines or antibiotics. I was very happy for my fire department when my then 3-year-old son decided to "dry off the grass" with our BBQ lighter in the backyard that resulted in a major fire because on the other side of the fence were four cords of eucalyptus and olive wood! These are good things. But, do I really need to be regulated as a parent? No, yet I am. I am told, by law, I must have 2 gallons of milk in my fridge at all times. I can't keep 2 gallons of milk in my fridge for 3 days!!! I am told how I can and cannot discipline my children. And then, there's the need for our government to expand beyond its borders. Theodore Roosevelt said, "Every expansion of a great civilized power means a victory for law, order, and righteousness," but by whose definition of law, order, and righteousness is he going by? What about the Native Americans whose lands were taken from them? How was that just, order, and righteous? It wasn't. Of course Charles Merriam said, "The Teutonic races must civilize the politically uncivilized...Barbaric races...may be swept away...interference with the affairs of states...is fully justified." This statement alone tells me that instead of maintaining something new created by our Founders, we have come full-circle, back to what the colonists were running from.

Our Founders were fully aware that they were not able to cover every aspect of what may come up in the future. They did their best to provide a guideline that would sure ensure liberty. In doing that, the community was free to help each other voluntarily. I feel, this system would have worked, given the chance. 100 years, just is not enough. It was good intentions that began our government, good intentions that changed our government to what it is, and now we have come full-circle to where our Founders started. But then again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, isn't it?

William Schambra offers a ray of hope though. He said, "In spite of the fact that Progressivism would go on to seize the commanding intellectual heights of the past century...it [the Constitution] was still there beneath it all, still there largely intact, waiting for rediscovery, still the official charter of the Republic, no matter how abused and ridiculed...The written Constitution has come down to us largely as it emerged from the pens of the Founders and still commands popular allegiance." This tells me, that in the end, the government can try and get bigger, but eventually, the Constitution will prevail, because no matter how much the people may want government to fix their problems, they also always want to maintain their freedom.